Dundee Society in the 19th Century

19th Century - The Sheriff Court and Dealings
Regarding the Poor.

From the Poor Law Magazine for Scotland 1838 to 1868

138 - SHERIFF COURTS - FORFARSHIRE DUNDEE

Mr. Sheriff Logan.
1861-62
Donald Ross, Westport, Dundee, - Petitioner
Henry Jack, Inspector, Dundee, - Resondant

Parochial Relief---Family Earnings---Circumstances in which Held that a man, head of a family, was entitled to parochial relief, in the first instance, although the ascertained income into the family of four was twelve shillings per week.
This was an application for parochial relief by the head of a family, numbering four members, and the defence stated for the respondent which embraces the facts of the case, is in the following terms: -
On 12th December last an application was made to the parochial Board, in the name of the petitioner, Donald Ross, craving admission to the poor roll of the parish. The respondent made the necessary inquires into the circumstances of this case, which as follows; - 1. He is aged sixty-three years, and a native of the parish of Kincardine, in the county of Ross, - married to Jean Murray, his wife, who is aged fifty-two years. They have two children living in the family with them, one named Grace, aged twenty-two years, and Christina, aged about fourteen years. Ross himself is paralysed and not able to work. The wife earns from 2s to 3s a week from washing, and the two daughters are constant employed as mill workers, earning weekly wages, - The eldest 7s, a week, and the youngest, 5s a week. In this way the family, numbering four individuals, living together, had an income of from 14s to 15s, a week In these circumstances the Parochial Board was of opinion that it was not a case of destitution, or, in the circumstances, on requiring parochial aid, and upon 20th December last refused the application. 2. The petitioner did not again apply to the Board office for some days and finding that matters were in the same position, the former deliverance by the Board has been adhered to, 3. In labouring population such as Dundee or anywhere, it is necessary, in disposing of an application for parish relief, to look to the whole circumstances of the family living together, and it would be mischievous and injurious to the public interest to pick out any individual member of such a family, and judge of his or her circumstances, without reference to the joint earnings of the household. If such was to be done we might have parties receiving relief from the assessment in cases where from 30s.to 40s a week would be coming into a family, being besides a premium for encouraging the worst of all acts, the refusal to support parents or members of the family. Hundreds of working men in this town, with families averaging about five members, and having a wife and three children to support out of their earnings towards the poor assessment, while their wages average from 14s. To 16s. A week. 4. The final judgment of this Court by the sheriff-Principal has sanctioned a practice of dealing with whole income of the family in a case similar to the present, but in which not so much wages were coming in.
In their circumstances, and on there being no allegation in the petition that the petitioner is refused support by his family, the respondent pleads in law that his application is untenable. And that the judgment of the Parochial Board in the circumstances ought to be supported.
The petitioner having been heard in support of his petition, the Sheriff-Substitute (Ogilvy) found that in the circumstance stated the petitioner as entitled to parochial relief, and ordered the respondent to afford such relief accordingly. Against this finding the respondent appealed, and at the debate before the Sheriff-Principal (Logan) the following took place:-
Mr Hay for the Inspector, said that he appealed against the Interlocutor of Sheriff Ogilvy, against the principle held by his Lordship, whereby he held that the petitioner was entitled to parochial relief, as apart from a consideration of the joint earnings of the family,. This case originated in an application by Donald Ross for parochial relief, and, after investigation into the circumstances, it was reported to the Committee that he and his wife and two grown daughters, lived in family together - the earnings of his wife being 2s. To 3s. A week, and the daughters 12s. Per week, making together about 15s, a week for the household. The committee of the Board, looking to the circumstances of other families in the same position, were of opinion that the applicant was not entitled to parochial relief. It was a fact that the working population of Dundee had to pay poor’s assessment although in receipt of not higher incomes than Ross’s family. Many working men, with families averaging from five to seven children had no more that 14s. A week, and many of them paying Poor’s assessment. To sanction therefore the Interlocutor entitling one of a family to be singled out, and dealt with without looking to the joint earnings of the household, as here attempted would be to free the children from supporting their parents. And of throwing that duty upon the public at large, many of whom were less able than his own children.
The Sheriff - I want to know from you. Mr Hay, who have had considerable experience on this subject, how you treat the following case; - Suppose the man himself unable had two sins, having a yearly income of £100 each, and refusing to support their parents, would you refuse that man’s application.?

Mr Hay--That is a question of circumstance, but is not the present case--there being no allegation here that the children here either refused to support or have cast on their parent.
The Sheriff-- Ross is entitled to the 3s. Earned by the wife, and what would you say was his legal claim in regard to the 14s?
Mr Hay-- I hold that the obligation to support is reciprocal--the child is as much in law bound to support the father, as the father is to support the child; and both living in family together, it would be against principle to hold that either of the parties could escape from that duty, and throw in upon the public at large. I don’t enter into the question as to the mode of assessment adopted in the parish, but it is the fact, that thousands of working, men, worse off than this family, are obliged to pay poor-rates; and in a large working population like Dundee, to sanction the principle of the Interlocutor would be practically to paralyse the working of the Poor Law.
The Sheriff - I think I have refused such applications before.
Mr Hay said he would refer his Lordship to some cases. The whole policy of the Poor Law was for the principle he maintained. In the first poor Law Act, in 1579, it was ordered that the officials should examine into the state of the poor, their ability to work, and of the number and condition of their family, and their earnings, before fixing whether they should receive parish aid. That principle was recognised by the Court of Session in several cases. He might mention the case of Pryde v The Heritor’s of Ceres, in 1843, being the case of a widow and seven young children. Eight shillings for the whole was in that case, but with difficulty, held too small, but little more would have been sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to exclude the operation of the Poor law Act. In the case of Lumsden in February 1846--a case resembling the present--it was indicated that a young woman earning 5s. A week was bound to support herself and an illegitimate child, but being one of two daughters living with an aged, infirm mother, the Court expressly held that, being bound, as one of the household, to contribute from her earnings to the support of her mother, the head of the household, she was, while unable to work, but only then, entitled to some relief for the child. He quoted that case to show that children living with their parents were bound to contribute towards expenses of the household. Mr Hay also referred to a judgment of the sheriff himself sanctioning the same principle

He observed that no one could accuse the Committee of the Parochial Board of dealing hardly on such cases. Some of the committee were gentlemen whose private charities for every case of distress were well known; but they had great difficulties to contend with, The present call involved the principle of one of a family who might be disabled, and without reference to the earnings of the rest, put upon the parish, which they thought would be unjust, and be improper upon the ratepayers.

The sheriff--Have you inquired as to the practice of the Board of Supervision?
Mr Hay said he had not, but that he looked upon it as a question of law.
Mr Miller, for the petitioner, said there was no evidence before his Lordship that the earnings of the family were what Mr, Hay had stated. The petitioner was sixty-four years of age, and it was admitted by the respondent that some time ago he was struck with paralysis, thereby rendering completely unable to follow his usual employment, and that his wife was not an able-bodied person, and was not likely to be able to work long. Referring to the philanthropy of the Committee spoken by Mr. Hay, he said that perhaps some of the members might do what was quite, but in this case there seemed to be a strong desire in the Committee to let the man vindicate himself to the Court. He might mention that on the application to the Sheriff-Substitute, the man was sent to the poorhouse, and he was a perfectly fit subject for it.
The sheriff - Are they willing to retain him there?
Mr Miller said that was a point in dispute, and he was presently receiving interim relief. He did not think that the two daughters of Donald Ross could be called upon their father off 14s a week, for that sum could scarcely support themselves. No human doing could not be called on to support another who was unable to support himself; and an indigent son of daughter could not be called upon to support and indigent parent if unable to do so. In these circumstances the girls could by no possibility support their father. No doubt they might have afforded him house-room but they could not have added to towards his sustenance,
The Sheriff asked Mr Miller if he admitted that the father could go to the parish for relief, if the girls instead of having 12s, had £2 a week?
Mr, Miller did not think the father could go to the parish in these circumstances with a claim; but supposing that did the parties refused to support their father, he could not starve in the meantime, but should make an application to the poorhouse, until the question was otherwise decided.
The Sheriff--Mr Miller seems now to admit the principle that when the family together have an income sufficient for themselves and the parents, the board would be entitled to refuse relief. Then the question is, is the income here sufficient?
Mr Hay said he was well satisfied that the principle was now conceded, it being the main object of this appeal to establish it. The question then comes to be one of degree..
Mr Miller--My Lord, I did not altogether admit this--
The sheriff--You may retract it yet if you will, but I understood you to say so. But whether you did so or not, I will hold that, had these women been in receipt of 36s, instead of 16s the Board should have been entitled to refuse relief.
Mr Hay--Then my Lord, that point conceded, the matter must be judged of in reference to the condition and circumstances of working people in the same locality--and the question is, are these parties in receipt of 15s, a week among four, entitled, comparatively to their neighbours to demand parochial relief ? He admitted they were not. The recent case of Donald, decided by the Court of Session, it was held that a poor man, with five children in receipt of six or seven shillings a week, was not entitled to parochial relief. Here, then, is double the amount, and less of a family
The Sheriff--The Court did not absolutely find that--they held Donald to be an able-bodied man.
Mr Hay--But they did son on account of the wages he was getting in,
The Sheriff - I don’t know that.
Mr Hay - The Judges specially said so, and one of them called at the Board of Supervision, and learned there was 7s. Was a fair average age for such a person, and he altered his first impression, which was a favour of Dundee, in consequence, and held that Donald was not entitled to parish relief. There was this circumstance also in the case, that, in point of 5s. Of the wages was earned by the eldest son, and ot was held to make no distinction in the question.
Mr Miller submitted that the Board was bound to give relief, and then raise proceedings against the daughter and son. This was the practice in Glasgow.
The sheriff--Is the practice in Glasgow to this effect. Suppose old Rothschild had no money, and was living with his two sons, would the parochial Board admit him to the roll because the sons gave him nothing, and then pursue the sons?
Mr Miller – I am afraid there would be no other way.
The sheriff - That I cannot entertain.
The Sheriff, after consideration, adhered to the finding of the Sheriff-Substitute in the following Interlocutor and Note--
Edinburgh, 10th May 1861.--the sheriff having heard parties’ procurators on the respondent’s appeal, having made avizandum with the debate, and having considered the whole proceedings, dismisses the said appeal, adheres to the Interlocutor appealed against, and decerns.
(signed) A.S. Logan
Note: - The petitioner is sixty-three or sixty-four years of age, his is wholly disabled by paralysis from labour, and he is possessed of no property whatever. Clearly then, he is a person legally entitled to parochial relief.
But such relief the respondent refuses to afford, assigning as his only reason the weekly earning of the petitioner’s wife and two daughters, amounting as he alleges to 14s or 15s. Of this sum one of the girls (aged twenty-two ) earns seven, and the other (aged fourteen) earns five shillings; and it is said that from two to three shillings further are earned by the wife (aged fifty two) by washing. The wages of the two daughters seem to be proved; the earnings of the wife are not proved, and their existence by the petitioner is denied.
But taking the in some of the family to be as stated, by far the greater part of it belongs to the daughters themselves, not to their father. He has no right whatever to demand them what they thus earn. At the utmost, he has only a personal claim against the girls themselves, fo such support as by law they may be bound to afford to a destitute parent. Were sun a claim actually brought, it might perhaps be held that their wages are no more than enough for their own personal maintenance.
In such circumstances, it would be an evasion, or rather indeed a direct denial of the petitioners legal demand to be supported by the parish, th meet his demand by a suggestion of an action at law at his instance against his children. He, in the meantime, is destitute and unable to work, and, should the parish authorities, after discharging their own primary duty for relieving him consider that they are entitled to be recompensed by his daughter, proceedings at law should to that end be adopted by themselves.
In thus determining. I desire to be distinctly, understood that I by no means intend to decide anything tending to encourage the notion that children, possessing the necessary means, are not bound to contribute to the support of their destitute parents, or, that, by a simple refusal to do so, they will transfer the burden of what is at once a natural and legal duty to the parish from themselves. What I have dine does not in the least infringe on the obligation which had been laid upon them alike by the law of God and man. What I have done indicates merely the course of procedure to be followed in procuring relief for a fit object in such cases as the present--a course of procedure which, clearly agreeable with principle, derives also the support from authority.
Thus in Pryde v Heritor’s of Ceres (5 seas.Rep.577) Lord Fullarton observes – “When a pauper comes for needful sustenance he could not be met by the answers that he may go against relatives. Sustenance must be given in the first instance by the parish, which may seek its relief against those bound to ailment the pauper” To this was added by Lord Jeffrey - ”The grandfather is also said to be capable of assisting; but if that were true, it is no ground why in the meantime the heritor’s and kirk-session should not afford sustenance and bring action of relief. They have more means and authority to do their duty. Their obligation is not to be enforced by staving the pauper in the meantime